What is your primary purpose for posting in the Global Warming section of Y/A?

I personally speak out because I believe that science is being thrown out the window. Only the viewpoints of the proponents are being considered in reference to AGW by our current administration. It's ridiculous and an embarrasment to science. When the government is threatening to tax us for carbon emissions, shouldn't we be relatively certain that what they're doing makes sense? Here is a recent post with some of my reasons for not believing the hype:

Over recent months even more evidence has surfaced challenging anthropogenic global warming. I do not say this as a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh listener although I do find their information to be correct most of the time. I say this because when I hear a rumor about something controversial I actually bother to research it. This is probably dissimiliar to many of the people who frequent yahoo answers and internet blogs.

The first report I am posting is one that was originally published several years ago by the US Senate. This report continues to grow in size and the number of scientists that contribute to it continues to grow.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F%E2%80%A6

I would ask that anyone who comments regularly on AGW takes the time to at least read a few dozen pages of this report before you pass judgement. For some reason people tend to over-politicize this issue. I think the tendency to jump on the bandwagon exists on both sides of the aisle.

The next report is one that was published by Alan Carlin and that was originally suppressed by the EPA. The report by Carlin outlines the problems and lack of science associated with AGW theory. The purpose of his research was to independently study the alleged consensus of AGW because the EPA had not independently done so previously. Here is the original news story:

http://www.forfreedomssake.com/blog/2009%E2%80%A6

In addition, in case you are wondering if the information is accurate, here is a copy of the actual emails:

http://c2.api.ning.com/files/94h*CleJGTY%E2%80%A6

The most telling portion is the email from Alan McGartland, director of the National Center of Environmental Economic (part of EPA) to Alan Carlin requesting the suppression of the report because it is not in tune with Mr. Obama's political agenda:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for

this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I have stressed in previous emails that this is not a criteria document for climate change and greenhouse gases. If such a document is ever drafted then perhaps your comments might be considered.

I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Read the emails for yourself. The Cap and trade legislation that is being pushed through has remained virtually off the radar unless you are a talk radio listener. "The time for discussion [science] is over, we have reached a consensus and you will now bend over and apply vaseline in preparation for your new climate change tax" (source: some dipshi* with a stake in carbon credits)

Despite multiple publications challenging AGW, the current government refuses to acknowledge that there is not a consensus as they would have us believe. Here is the actual report by Mr. Carlin detailing the numerous problems with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory:

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/upl%E2%80%A6

They don't like the inference that it is a political issue. They want it to be strictly scientific even though the science has been fudged for political reasons. Their whole approach to "global warming" is political rather than sensible. They want us to cut emissions 17% by 2017 and 80% by 2050 but won't allow us to use the only alternative energy that would allow us to continue any kind of acceptable life. Nuclear energy is off the table. After they put up millions of windmills, someone will write another "Silent Spring" book about the birds being killed by the windmills. Then vandals will have a hay day breaking every solar panel they can find. There is just something very odd about the whole approach to "global warming" that seems to point to an agenda that only benefits a very few elites while the rest of us become ants in a very large ant hill.

First to correct a mistatement by Dana among many. You will find that Dana cannot produce one time I suggest that all climate change is natural. Climates always change naturally. There is a difference. I recognize that CO2 concentration increases will have an effect. I simply think that effect is exaggerated to ridiculous extents by him and other alarmists. I am a conservative but I am also a scientist. As a conservative, it is often easy for me to spot leftist nonsense trying to pass off as science. This is rampant lately. The environmental movement has become a hornets nest of far left wing zealots. It is harming the credibilty of science.

I first became interested in the problem in the late 70's. As a graduate student at Scripps Institution of Oceanography I was around a lot of people who knew, from Keeling's work, that CO2 concentrations were rising and were trying to devise ways of understanding scientifically what effects this would have. I shifted into medical electronics engineering because I'm more interested in making things than studying them and it pays a lot better than academic research. I keep up with science, oceanography especially, for kicks.

I used to post because I thought that people needed education about the science to make an informed decision and I think I do a fairly good job of clarifying science.

I now post mainly because I am sick and tired of people distorting the science and badmouthing the scientists for their own ideological reasons.

The techniques and the "logic" used by the deniers of manmade global warming remind me very forcefully of those who try to push "creation science" . I don't like the attitude that physics can be argued away as though it were merely a political viewpoint. I don't like propagandists who are willing to lie in the service of their ideology, and I especially don't like it that my children and I are going to live in a much nastier world because of all this denial and political footdragging.

Good question - I have to wear a sweatshirt to bike, in July, and I'm arguing online with people who insist that it's warming. It's like arguing with someone who insists that the Orioles are having a hell of a year.

As for the planet cooling in the last 10 years, that fact is undeniable. It was warmer 10 years ago than it is now. 1998 was the warmest year on record, 2008 was the tenth warmest, ergo it cooled. Period. How does one argue with that?

My son is 2 inches taller than he was a year ago. That means he grew. Dana would disagree with that.

I weigh 85 lbs less than I did a year and a half ago. That means I lost weight. Dana would disagree with that.

I do it mostly to watch Dana spew forth his religious dogma and use loaded terms to denigrate people that disagree with him. Denier is the first loaded term that comes to mind.

Beware of the Cult of the Alarmist.

Plus, I get two points whenever I post an answer, and ten points if I get chosen for the best answer.

In addition, I feel duty bound to share my immense knowledge with others.

just to get 2 pts..

Primarily to correct the loads and loads of misinformation which is presented here on a daily basis (e.g. see Randall's [Didier's] answer, where he flat-out lies about me). People saying things like "the planet has been cooling for 10 years" or "I'm a geologist so I know all climate change is natural" with zero supporting evidence.

The purpose of YA is to inform people. If the site is full of misinformation, it's doing its users a disservice. I answer here to ensure that the correct information is made available, as are links to scientific sources where people can go to learn for themselves.